OFFLINE

The recent Reason-Rupe poll finds that 80% of Americans say they would or might consider voting for an Independent or third-party presidential candidate in the 2012 election. Specifically, 60% said they would consider voting for an independent or third-party candidate, 20% said they might consider, 17% said they would not consider, and 3% said they did not know whether they would consider voting for an Independent or third-party presidential candidate.



rest of the article is here: http://reason.com/poll/2011/05/10/80-of-americans-voting, is too big and has too many graphs to be posting the whole thing....

OFFLINE

i think that generically, this may be true. but in reality, third party candidates have only ever picked up 10ish%.

OFFLINE

I did last time.

OFFLINE

I may possibly, considering I am leaning more towards the middle than I ever have before.

OFFLINE

Still a long way to go before the election.  And others may still enter.

OFFLINE

unfortunately, under our system, voting for a third party is nearly just as good as voting for one of the main two parties. if you vote for a most conservative third party candidate (particularly in presidential elections), then you're taking a vote away from a republican. if you vote for a more liberal third party candidate, you're taking a vote away from the democrat.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
unfortunately, under our system, voting for a third party is nearly just as good as voting for one of the main two parties. if you vote for a most conservative third party candidate (particularly in presidential elections), then you're taking a vote away from a republican. if you vote for a more liberal third party candidate, you're taking a vote away from the democrat.

Yeah, you guys should really move towards a more parliamentary-type system with proportional representation where a vote for a 3rd (or even 4th or 5th) party isn't a wasted vote.

:-P

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
unfortunately, under our system, voting for a third party is nearly just as good as voting for one of the main two parties. if you vote for a most conservative third party candidate (particularly in presidential elections), then you're taking a vote away from a republican. if you vote for a more liberal third party candidate, you're taking a vote away from the democrat.

Yeah, you guys should really move towards a more parliamentary-type system with proportional representation where a vote for a 3rd (or even 4th or 5th) party isn't a wasted vote.

:-P

just muddies the waters more IMO

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
unfortunately, under our system, voting for a third party is nearly just as good as voting for one of the main two parties. if you vote for a most conservative third party candidate (particularly in presidential elections), then you're taking a vote away from a republican. if you vote for a more liberal third party candidate, you're taking a vote away from the democrat.

Yeah, you guys should really move towards a more parliamentary-type system with proportional representation where a vote for a 3rd (or even 4th or 5th) party isn't a wasted vote.

:-P

Eh, proportional representation isn't worth it.  It vastly reduces choice by no longer allowing you to pick the individual representing you.  A Republican from Fresno is going to have some different interests and ideas than one from Orange County.  It (at least should be) more about the person than the party.

OFFLINE

the problem is the elites are fighting for power, rather than the people. and this is true anywhere. this is the reason we need to re-limit the power. this is the reason that one way or another, a reset is on the way.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:


Eh, proportional representation isn't worth it.  It vastly reduces choice by no longer allowing you to pick the individual representing you.  A Republican from Fresno is going to have some different interests and ideas than one from Orange County.  It (at least should be) more about the person than the party.

How do you figure that it reduces choice? The System we have here in Ireland is PR-STV, or Proportional Representation - Single Transferrable Vote. Each voting district has a set number of TDs (our version of congressmen), and to get elected, each TD has to pass a certain threshold of no of votes cat for them (sort of like the way the electoral college votes work for the presidential election). So, I vote in order of my preferences. If by the time my vote gets to be counted, my #1 choice has already been elected by getting enough votes already to pass the threshold, my vote goes to my #2 choice and so on down the ballot paper.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:


Eh, proportional representation isn't worth it.  It vastly reduces choice by no longer allowing you to pick the individual representing you.  A Republican from Fresno is going to have some different interests and ideas than one from Orange County.  It (at least should be) more about the person than the party.

How do you figure that it reduces choice? The System we have here in Ireland is PR-STV, or Proportional Representation - Single Transferrable Vote. Each voting district has a set number of TDs (our version of congressmen), and to get elected, each TD has to pass a certain threshold of no of votes cat for them (sort of like the way the electoral college votes work for the presidential election). So, I vote in order of my preferences. If by the time my vote gets to be counted, my #1 choice has already been elected by getting enough votes already to pass the threshold, my vote goes to my #2 choice and so on down the ballot paper.

dumb. no offense. winner take all is more direct.